Recent Comments by Kreegath subscribe to this feed

30 years later, Season 2 of The Mysterious Cities of Gold

Kreegath says...

I also cried, because I loved that show as a little kid when it aired in my country, watching it together with my siblings as we had an amazing adventure along with the characters of the show every single episode. The reason I'm crying now, however, is because:

Unlike the original series, this sequel is produced entirely in France; as a co-joint venture between the French television channel TF1, the Belgian channel La Trois, the French animation company Blue Spirit and Jean Chalopin's company Movie-Plus Group.
The first of the new seasons sees the series move to China. The design of the characters are more or less the same, although some subtle changes have been made to their physical appearances. Jean Chalopin and Bernard Deyries act as creative consultants on the new series, with Chalopin concentrating particularly on the scripts (which are written by Hadrian Soulez-Lariviere from Chalopin's own draft for the sequel) and Deyries focusing particularly on the graphical aspects. New background music is composed by Noam Kaniel.

It's not the same animation, it's not the same writers, it's not the same setting, it's not the same voice actors and it's not the same memorable music. Nothing's the same. It's the same feeling as with the Star Wars prequels if you can believe it, only with less source material. Maybe our children will enjoy this show without having the nostalgic baggage of "The Mysterious Cities of Gold" series; but for me as a fan of what must be 25 years or more, this just looks unwatchable.
Not everything good is made better by making more of it, and especially after a 30 year period of the series being over and done with. I think that the window of opportunity has passed on making another season of this show by a couple of decades, I think the season they're making looks inferior both in content and quality and I think the people who made the series work so well aren't being emulated, making this creation something akin to a stranger wearing a face mask of the show, something which is copying the names but is completely set apart from "The Mysterious Cities of Gold", with no legs of its own to stand on but only a cheap imitation crutch.

George Galloway Storms Out Of Debate With Israeli Student

Kreegath says...

Then I am wrong, because I went by the word of Galloway in the video that Gorillaman posted.
There, Galloway said he was deceived by the organizer, who did not tell him he'd be debating an Israeli citizen arguing the Israeli state. In the video Galloway also goes on to say that he's had several Israeli citizens on his show and who he's on platform with. Galloway specifically states that he doesn't consider every Israeli citizen the problem, that he doesn't consider jews to be the problem, but that it's the Israeli citizens in favour of the Israeli state. He names several prominent jews and Israelis whom he agrees with, and he also details what and why he objected to the particular person in the debate video. It was not simply because the person was Israeli, not simply because the person was a jew.

That means he did not know he was going to be debating a person he's well known for refusing to debate, an Israeli citizen of military age and background who defends the sovereignty of Israel, meaning he was deceived into participating in something all parties involved knew he would refuse, had he known the facts. It also means Galloway didn't refuse simply because the person in question was Israeli, it was the circumstances surrounding that character which made Galloway leave, in addition to being lied to and made a publicity stunt of by the misleading organizer.

George Galloway Storms Out Of Debate With Israeli Student

Kreegath says...

He doesn't recognize the state of Israel, so the point of arguing the state of Israel is completely moot for him, THAT is the reason. He's not anti-semitic in the sense that he hates jews, he just doesn't recognize the state of Israel, no? That is not the same thing. It definately isn't interchangeable with any other nationality, as his problem is specifically with Israel.
This is much like how the Israeli government for the longest time refused to talk to the Palestinian leadership because it didn't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
Let him discuss something else, ANYTHING else, with an Israeli person and you can be sure he'd be up for it.

He walked out from that debate because he got ambushed by the event organisers, who knew full well that he would not agree to any debate involving Israel and Israelis debating Israel, but decided to deceive him into participating by misleading him into believing the event was about something it was not. Had they been straightforward about this then he'd declined the invitation and the end result would be the same, he would not have participated. Instead, they orchestrated this whole debacle with the sole intent of gaining some publicity, and perhaps to cast him in bad light while they're at it. There was no other outcome from this, they knew he wouldn't participate and invited him anyway, making sure there would be cameras there to capture everything on film. That is shameful.

George Galloway Storms Out Of Debate With Israeli Student

George Galloway Storms Out Of Debate With Israeli Student

Kreegath says...

How is he hate mongering? He refuses to argue with a 20 year-old military idealist from a country who's sovereignty he doesn't recognize. Disregarding that debating with a 20 year-old idealist is like arguing with a brick wall because nothing productive can ever come of it for anyone, he was deceived into participating with his policies well known by the organizers, long before he was to be invited. He did nothing wrong by walking out from that ambush. Actually, that's probably the most sensible thing he could've done under the circumstances.

If ANYTHING, this is unrepentant attention whoring on the part of the organizers.

Key & Peele: Die Hard 5

Personal Queue Videos question (Sift Talk Post)

Kreegath says...

In 2008 there was some debate about the practice of requeueing by killing and resubmitting videos that failed to reach the 10 vote limit until they did.

I'm also fairly certain it's been raised in sift talk before, and in profile conversations. Personally, I find it directly in contrast to the entire point of the unsifted tab to kill and resubmit something when there is a system set in place for promotes. It's not quality control if you keep resubmitting something that has been tried and failed, like in the case of this video that requeued six times before there was a discussion about it, now gone though since it was before the siftpocalypse: http://videosift.com/video/Resident-Evil-4-WTF-is-going-on

Here's a sift talk discussion on the *requeue command, which in practice is exactly like killing and resubmitting: http://videosift.com/talk/Introducing-Beggars-Corner

Actual Gun/Violent Crime Statistics - (U.S.A. vs U.K.)

Kreegath says...

OK, so what is the definition of "violent crime" that these two sources he cites uses?
Granted, I don't know the first thing about US or UK law, however I should think that the UK and US has some varying definitions of what is considered a violent crime. So unless you are comparing the actual crimes from each country, or you compare only the crimes that fit into the definition of "violent crime" in both countries, you are comparing apples to oranges. If the higher rates of the UK are due to the label "violent crime" setting a wider net of offences than the US or vice versa, then this video is just as misleading as the media lying with statistics to further an agenda, however well-intended the person is who's making it.

You Are of Yesterday, We Are of Tomorrow

hpqp (Member Profile)

Kreegath says...

Where your guessing I'm white comes from, or how my skin color or gender would matter in the least, I don't know. You clearly seem to have some kind of history with MRA people and believe them all to be misogynists, and perhaps they might all be. I don't know, I'm not affiliated with them. But you equating my criticism of the video with being in cahoots with MRA convinced you I had to be pushing some agenda and blinded you not only to the intent of the sarcasm tag but also to any other possible meaning of the post, instead reading a simplistic turning-of-the-tables jab into what you seem to have perceived to be my sexist manifesto. That's the problem with reading a sarcastic post seriously and afterwards taking the sarcasm tag as disingenuous.
What I found objectionable with this video was that the artist misconstrued Todd Akin's incredibly stupid attempt at connecting pregnancy due to rape with his pro-life stance to say so much more than he did, that he considers any of those in lyrics mentioned scenarios of rape to be illegitimate. He didn't say that, though, so with all the things that he could be criticized for, there's no need for the artist to manufacture an outrage that he actually didn't put into words. Maybe you know something about him and his stances on rape that wasn't widely brought up in public during all this, but I only read his public statement linked in the description bar as well as reading about him on wiki and didn't see anything in it even hinting at him thinking all rape is illegitimate. So, what I did was basically the same thing I disliked about the sifted video, taking one aspect of the song that I reacted to; all mentioning of gender as pertaining to rape like: him taking her out, husband's privilege, he didn't have consent, short skirts. As such it's misrepresenting the artist's intended message (as I understand it), that Todd Akin thinks women can't be legitimately raped, to instead say that she thinks only men rape only women, hence the sarcasm tag. It's very easy to put words into other people's mouths.

It's really easy to jump on someone who's already being jumped on, and that is what I thought this video did. I didn't think it brought anything to any discussion, I didn't think it was funny and I thought it was unfunny because I perceived it (and still do, since nobody has divulged any further information) as hate fuel and character attacks based on misrepresentation. This isn't the first time I've reacted to this, as you can see me defending another borderline reprehensible person from what I though was unjust and unwarranted avenue of criticism: http://videosift.com/video/Bill-OReilly-amazed-that-Black-restaurant-is-civilized

You are free to challenge any post all you like, but telling me to go fuck myself, that I disgust you and that I'm sexist and somehow pushing some misogynistic agenda, which has no basis in anything in the post, is not challenging anything. That's antagonism at best, slander at worst. You don't know anything about me, neither how I act, how I have acted nor how I think and feel, so making all kinds of value judgments on my character and verbally abuse me is completely unwarranted. I didn't discriminate against women in that post, I didn't imply women were less than men, nor do I think that. Both actions and words have consequences, even in internet communities, and any and all rash language and inflammatory rhetoric will still linger on long afterwards.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
I will concede this much: my response was emotionally laden and insulting. But attacking what very clearer appears to be MRA misogynistic BS is not "white knighting", despite my perhaps overly heavy-handed manner. Or does one have to follow specific guidelines in order for their challenge of your comment's apparent ideas to be taken seriously? If you had a valid point to make with that comment, I think it's fair to say you failed miserably at getting it across. So instead of accusing me of "comment noise" because you don't like what I say, why don't you come and clarify what you meant? It's unfair and rather shameful of you to call my response petty and wildly assuming; your comment does not allow many other interpretations than the one I made. The only mere assumptions I made were to your gender and ethnicity, based on the fact that the MRA movement is almost entirely the resort of white males.

Come back to the thread and provide in clear language what you meant by your sarcastic lyrics, and if I was wrong in my interpretation thereof I will be quick to apologise publicly for getting you wrong.

(I am taking this off "private" setting because as a continuation of an open sift discussion I believe it should be available to anyone involved. I stand by my words, and I am sure you do to.)
In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
Look, I don't know what emotional baggage you're carrying or what possesses you to go so overboard with white knighting, but you're behaving childishly and if you can't talk to someone you disagree with, or you think you disagree with, without starting to infer your preconceived notions onto them and insult and cuss them out, you are no better than any of the other comment noise that plagues youtube. If you want to rise above such pettyness, apologize for drawing wild conclusions, insulting and accusing me on the basis of those wild conclusions and maybe we can have a discussion about what my post was actually saying about that person's video.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
>> ^Kreegath:

How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬
Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬


Oh, looks like we've got an MRA-hole in the house. Let me guess: you're a white male with malignant priviligitis, amirite? Did any one line of the song suggest falsely accusing someone of rape? Or calling all men rapists? Or hating men?? Oh wait, you ticked the sarcasm tag, that makes it all an a-okay bit of humour right? Wrong.

Your kind disgusts me. And by that I don't mean "men"; no, real men (and women, and anyone in between) know to respect another person's consent and their choice to retract it at any given moment. No, by "your kind" I mean the slimy, any-one-who-points-out-the-sexism-in-our-society-is-a-man-hating-feminazi-and-fear-mongerer kind.

I won't stoop to the MRA-low of wishing rape on you, because I would not wish it on anyone. Instead, I'll kindly suggest you go fuck yourself, because anyone in their right mind, male female or otherwise, would not consent to it with you if they knew your sexist stance. /angry rant

*quality song btw



Hey kids, need some help recognising legitimate rape?

Kreegath jokingly says...

How do you know if you're suffering from man hating and fear? ♫
I'll tell you how to spot, man hating and fear ♪
You're not sure you've got, man hating and fear ♬

Well here's a little lesson for you,
Tell me if the following things are true:
I think all rapists are men - man hating and fear
I think all victims are women - man hating and fear
I rub out all grey areas to prove a moot point - man hating and fear
Men should have no rights to defense against allegations of rape - man hating and fear ♬

Rapists Beware

Videosift 5.0 Request: Allow block of user Avatars (Terrible Talk Post)

Kreegath says...

Maybe the people who like blue bulging crotches could install an addon instead, which changes avatars into those pictures? That way you can have any freaky fetish you like displayed to you, and not impose it on everyone else.

John Stossel's Illegal Everything

Kevin's One Night Stand Turns Creepy - (Audiosift)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon